Contrast of Health Care Structures II Health, Medicine, Nursing Essay

Contrast of Health Care Structures
Reflection
* the revision process focused primarily on the instructor’s comments on the draft paper. All the comments were taken into consideration as instructed. Besides, there was a critical exploration of any needed additional information.
* The primary changes involved in the research. The revised paper is researched and every aspect, suggestion, and fact is quoted based on its source. Adherence to the resources meant that the researcher had the freedom to instill more information on the final paper if compared to the draft.
* The revision also focused on the professional outlook of the paper. Emphasis was put on formatting the paper according to the APA guidelines. This means that the paper from the cover page, the introductory page, body paragraphs, titles and sub-titles, and the conclusion adhered to the professional standards dictated by APA.
* In the final draft, more emphasis was put on understanding the point of view of the researcher. Hence, aspects that include illustrations and provisions of examples and cases were considered in the final draft. This meant that each point had the content worthy of a paper at this level of research.
* The revised version also focused on the readability of the paper. The researcher ensured that the paper employed simple vocabulary, effective grammar, and fluent sentence structures that are easy to read and simple to follow. Besides the sentence structures, the paper also emphasized adherence to the flow of ideas in the research. All the ideas are organized in a logical order and a reader can easily follow or predict the next possible point.
* The last aspects of the revision accommodated the effective structuring of the paragraphs with a topic sentence, explanations, and illustrations all accommodated in each of the paragraphs. The revision was aimed at making the paper more professional, readable, and adherent to the APA principles.
contrast of Health Care Structures
There is an increase in the debate about healthcare structures that the nation should adopt with emphasis put on citizens’ needs. Policymakers are at loggerheads about what structures could be good for healthcare (Arbuckle, 2013). Among the centers of the debate are the quality and quantity of healthcare services. Any viable policymaker would want both high quality and high rates of access included in healthcare service. That becomes difficult because a hybrid structure is what limits the emphasis and resource allocation in a particular system (Miah & Yeoh, 2019). This analysis contrasts healthcare structures on grounds of their viability. The analysis is vital in determining the right structure for a nation in terms of cost allocation, workplace mobility, communication, and stakeholder satisfaction.
One should be equipped with a basic understanding of the two structures before delving into the debate of which is better. A private facility is owned by private citizens and operates within the confines of the owner’s standards (Haseltine & Brookings Institution, 2013). An owner of a private healthcare facility makes sole decisions on aspects such as their current position, what they need to do to achieve their set goals, and how they must operate to achieve those goals. A public-structured healthcare facility is owned by the public (Miah & Yeoh, 2019). These facilities work in the interest of their owners. They are funded by the public and should deliver results that are viable to all the stakeholders no matter the costs.
The first principal difference between a public structure and private structure in healthcare is communication. Privately-structured healthcare facilities tend to have divisional communication structures while public hospitals have hierarchical communication structures (Haseltine & Brookings Institution, 2013). As one may notice, communication remains a primary component in healthcare. Communication between healthcare service providers and their patients can make it easier to instill patient-centered care. That marks the value of the differences between the two communication structures. In a divisional structure, people communicate freely with each other. That is, ranks and positions of individuals within the facility do not limit their interactions. Divisional structures in private healthcare facilities also enhance teamwork and inter-professional interactions. Conversely, public structures are dominated by hierarchical communication channels (Miah & Yeoh, 2019). Such are organizations that are bureaucratic in nature and communication flow in the form of orders, instructions, and commands from the top management to the functional units while only requests flow the other way. The hierarchical communication structures limit the proper flow of information, which could culminate in poor services.
Size is another aspect that differentiates public and private structures. Private-structured hospitals are usually smaller than public ones. That bears notable implications on service delivery. In a small healthcare facility, it becomes easier to move physically from one point to another (Haseltine & Brookings Institution, 2013). Occasionally, patients and healthcare practitioners need the movement to execute their roles. The smaller sizes of private hospitals also imply that they serve only a few people within their ranks (Kimuyu, 2017). Perhaps, the high quality of healthcare accompanied by increased prices for services has instituted the understanding that only a few individuals can afford such facilities (Arbuckle, 2013). Developing large facilities when the stakeholders understand that only a few could use them in the long-term is a waste of resources. On the other hand, public facilities are larger. The size translates to the need to serve more people. The large size of public hospitals triggers more individuals who need the services and cannot afford private facilities to attend such hospitals. Bearing their respective sizes, it would be challenging to replace one for the other (Woolf et al., 2013). For instance, it can be financially straining to turn a public structure into a private one because the big sizes would have to be transformed into high-quality services. The same applies to turn private structures into public ones because the organizations will need more resources to expand and accommodate more people while still offering high-quality services.
Workplace mobility is another aspect that differentiates private structures and their public counterparts. Workplace mobility implies an individual’s ability to progress in their careers while working for either of the facilities (Woolf et al., 2013). Primarily, there are no big differences in the roles of healthcare professionals within both facilities. Both categories of professionals are tasked to offer premium services to their clients (Miah & Yeoh, 2019). However, due to their hierarchical structures and fairly large sizes, public structures tend to instill faster career progression. Private healthcare facilities are integrative and take longer to initiate changes concerning employee mobility (World Bank, 2011). That does not imply the inability of employees to move from one structural set up to another. It only implies that individuals who insist on loyalty to particular operational settings have more chances of advancing their careers in public than they do in private.
Financial resource allocation and utilization mark the ultimate difference between the two structures. Naturally, resource allocation and utilization determine the quality of services that entities can offer (Weinstein et al., 2017). Those organizations that can manage their resources efficiently can achieve more as opposed to those with poor organization. Private healthcare facilities tend to manage their resources more efficiently. Such institutions focus on economic models in which the quality of their services determine the prices for those services. With public institutions funded and managed by the government, barely do they focus on the management of their resources (Woolf et al., 2013). In a natural sense, an organization that is structured to make profits would utilize their resources with enhanced efficiency and deliver high-quality services as opposed to those with unstructured financial management tools.
The current rationale and future viability of both structures depend on various factors. Currently, both private and future structures are viable. That is because society is divided economically that some people cannot afford some services even if they wanted (Weinstein et al., 2017). The few individuals with financial capabilities can access the services. Put simply, private and public hospitals are currently relevant because they both target different people. That makes public structures more viable for the future. The operational environment in public systems is already suitable for most citizens (Braithwaite et al., 2015). Each person requires healthcare services. The only challenge that public systems must overcome to reach the futuristic demands is resource consolidation. Private structures cannot grow beyond what they currently have because their resources are already consolidated and they understand how to channel their resources (Woolf et al., 2013). If that happens in public structures, the country will have healthcare facilities that can serve more people without straining the quality of services. Public premises ar...